Breach of non-molestation order

R v Richards, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 28 April

Despite a non-molestation order the defendant father had gone to the complainant’s premises and had made telephone calls, contrary to the terms of the order and contrary to s42A of the Family Law Act 1996, as inserted by s1 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. His case was that he had had a reasonable excuse for doing so in that the complainant mother, an alcoholic, was drunk and he feared for the safety of their two sons. His appeal against conviction after the trial judge had ruled that the burden of proof relating to reasonable excuse was on him, was allowed. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to show that the defendant in acting as he did, acted without reasonable excuse.